THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA & ANR. versus M/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 8 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 26-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 8 S.C.R.
   [2023] 8 S.C.R. 1098
1098
THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA & ANR.
v.
M/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3134-3135 of 2023)
 APRIL 26, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Stamp Act, 1899 – s.27– Andhra Pradesh Act (8 of 1988) –
Proviso to s.27 added – Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 1971 –
s.47A – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.8 – ‘immovable property’–
Exigibility of the plant and machinery to stamp duty under the Act –
Second respondent auction purchased the property, at a bid of
Rs.8.35 crores, consisting of land, building, civil works, plant &
machinery and other assets – On the basis of direction given in
C.A. No. 1203 of 2004 at the instance of the second respondent,
the Official Liquidator was accorded permission to execute the sale
deed in favour of the first respondent (nominee of the second
respondent) – Sale deed executed in favour of the first respondent
– Respondents 1 & 2 applied for registration of the sale deed on
the basis that the land and building had to be registered with the
value thereof being shown as Rs.1,01,05,000/ – First appellant
informed the first respondent that due to some reasons registration
was kept pending – Respondents 1 and 2 challenged the said
communication – Second appellant-District Registrar directed the
first respondent and the Official Liquidator to deposit stamp duty
besides penalty – Writ petition filed by Respondents 1 & 2, Single
Judge of High Court remitted the matter to the second appellant –
Division Bench inter alia directed the Sub-Registrar to consider the
respondents’ request for registration of the lands and buildings
purchased by them and determine its value on the date of
presentation of the document for registration, collect the stamp duty
and registration fees thereupon – Held: From a reading of the Recital
Clause in conjunction with s.8, Transfer of Property Act, the
intention of the parties become self-evident that the vendor intended
to convey, all things, which inter alia stood attached to the earth –
Mere fact that there is no express reference to plant and machinery
in the Recital Clause cannot mean that the interest in the plant and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1099
machinery which stood attached to the land, which was scheduled,
was not conveyed to the first respondent – Sum of Rs.8.35 crores
was unambiguously indicated as the total sale consideration for
the asset sold to the first respondent, comprising of land, building,
civil works, plant and machinery and current assets, etc – However,
first respondent took out the value of the land, building and civil
works and shown it at Rs.10105000/-, indicating only the said
amount as value – This was to tide over the liability to stamp duty
for what was actually, in law, conveyed to the first respondent –
Effort of respondents 1 & 2 was to avoid payment of the stamp duty
as due in law – Division Bench erred in not noticing the true purport
of the sale deed in conjunction with s.8, 1882 Act and definition of
the word ‘immovable property – The sale deed operated to convey
the rights over the plant and machinery as well, which was comprised
in the land scheduled in the sale deed – In the nature of the
transaction, and what was actually sold by the Official Liquidator,
plant and machinery, such as would answer the description of
immovable property, must also be found part of the property for the
purpose of the stamp duty and other charges as per law – First
respondent is liable in law as vendee to pay the stamp duty –
Impugned judgment set aside – Judgment of the Single Judge
restored subject to the modification that the direction to the second
appellant to give the benefit of GoMS dtd.07.02.2001 is set aside –
Second appellant will ascertain the value of plant and machinery –
It will also go into the question, whether the first respondent would
be entitled to the benefit of the exemption of stamp duty, etc., as
claimed and make available the exemption, if entitled in law –
Registration Act, 1908 – General Clauses Act, 1897.
Andhra Pradesh Amending Act (8 of 1988) – Proviso added
to s.27, Stamp Act, 1899; s.47A – Held: Proviso to s.27 does empower
the Officer to inspect the property, make local inquiries in the facts,
call for connected records, examine them and satisfy that the
provisions of s.27 are complied with – s.27 provides that the
consideration, if any, and the other facts and circumstances,
affecting the chargeability of any

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.